A. At the time of committing the instant crime, the Defendant had weak ability to discern things and make decisions due to mental problems, such as a colonies, etc.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (4 million won by fine) is too unreasonable.

2. The Defendant also asserted the same as the lower court’s judgment regarding the claim of mental disability.

However, in light of various circumstances, such as the circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly submitted, the means and method of the crime, the Defendant’s act before and after the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, etc., the Defendant cannot be deemed to have lost the ability to discern things or make decisions due to the injury and injury at the time of the crime in this case.

The court below's decision rejecting the defendant's above assertion is just and acceptable.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion cannot be accepted.

3. In light of the following circumstances: (a) examining the argument of unfair sentencing on the assertion of unfair sentencing; (b) the number of crimes is inferior; (c) the damage recovery for the defrauded amount was not made; and (d) the crime of this case is not received from the victim; and (c) the crime of this case is in the relation of latter concurrent crimes under Article 37 of the Criminal Act with the criminal records as indicated in the judgment; (d) the Defendant’s health status is not good; and (e) other favorable circumstances such as the sentencing conditions as prescribed by Article 51 of the Criminal Act, it cannot be deemed that the lower court’s punishment

The defendant's above assertion is not accepted.

4. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.